If you support gay marriage...?

Question

...don't you also have to support first cousin marriage?

Research has shown that first cousins only raise the risk of birth defects by 1.7-2.8%. That percentage is far below the risk of people who carry genetic disorders passing it on to their children (upwards to 50% in some cases), and there are no laws governing those individual's marriage or reproduction. The reason we don't allow first cousin marriage is purely based on opinion/religious morals.

So since there's no scientific reason behind the ban, shouldn't you ethically have to be in support of first cousin marriage if you're for gay marriage?

Why aren't you, if you support gay marriage?

http://www.nsgc.org/news/cousins.cfm
National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC)
This is where the research information is from.

Michael B, if you read beyond the first sentence you would have seen that this has nothing to do with the slippery slope arguement, nor is it "anti-gay". If you want to spout off baseless accusations do it someplace else.

The reasoning is as follows: If we do not allow first cousin marriage because of the risk of birth defects, why do we allow those with genetic disorders to have offspring? They actually pose a higher risk than first cousins. The arguement against it is purely based on opinion/religious morals. The very arguement that is not accepted when it comes to gay marriage.

Therefore, if you are for gay marriage you are opposing the view that personal opinion or religious morals can not dictate who can marry. Since people with a higher risk percentage can already marry, shouldn't you view the first cousin ban as unjust?

If you don't, why not?

That's what the question asks. Please read more than the first line next time.

**Correction**
Therefore, if you are for gay marriage you are opposing the view that personal opinion or religious morals can dictate who can marry.

Need a preview button for details :P

Same goes for you, Hollywood [hobo]™. Read more than the first line of a question please. You've gone off on a rant that has nothing to do with what's being asked here.

Answer 1

Personally, I have less of a stance on first-cousin marriage -- because it is not gender-based discrimination -- it is discrimination based on a reasonably likelihood of passing on genetic defects -- which is at least an objective argument that has nothing to do with religious disapproval.

That being said -- I don't think the govt should be in the business of deciding who gets legal benefits of marriage. As long as the people are two adult humans -- whether they choose to have sex or not is up to them.

And marriage (as a civil matter) is about who gets legal benefits -- and there is really no reason to limit that beyond just two adult humans.

Answer 2

Like you said, cousin marriages RAISE the risk of birth defects. Gay marriage has zero risk of birth defects, because they can't have children. So if you're arguing that only couples with low birth defect rates should get married, then gay marriage should be your most supported type of marriage.

Answer 3

Society gives "benefits" to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore, when those who are not married, such as people in homosexual or cohabiting relationships, seek to receive such public benefits, they bear the burden of proof. They must show that such relationships benefit society (not just themselves) in the same way and to the same degree that authentic marriage between a man and a woman does.
This is a burden they cannot meet. Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race. And research clearly demonstrates that married men and women — and children raised by their married, biological mother and father — are happier, healthier and more prosperous than people in any other living situation. These are the true benefits of marriage.
The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle. They give an incentive to enter into the socially beneficial relationship of authentic marriage and give protection to the social institution of marriage.
Awarding such benefits to the unmarried makes no more sense than giving veterans' benefits to people who never served in the military.
Fortunately, voters in 18 of the 26 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions did so in a way designed to protect the uniqueness of the institution of marriage, not just to protect the word "marriage."

Answer 4

Uh, excuse you. Being gay has nothing to do with marrying your cousin. I can't believe you actually posted this. I'm seriously offended by all of this.

I support gay marriages because love is love. No matter if you're black, white, yellow, male, female, tall, or short.

So, basically, people who go against it are saying it's okay for two straight people who absolutely hate each other to be married but totally immoral for two gay people who are in love to be married?

Now, let's get something straight here gay people can't mate. So, how can they cause birth defects? The only thing they can do is have someone else supply what they need or adopt. What's your problem with that? There are tons of kids waiting to be adopted everyday, so, they're helping to take care of that problem.

I hate people who are against someone just because of their sexual preferences. It's just entirely stupid.

And as for the bible, news flash, it was made by a monk who was made to be alone all of his life actually more than one monk and they sat down wrote those stories so that people could better themselves and help themselves get through life and learn life lessons before they actually made the mistakes themselves.

It's not about some guy who lives in the sky and some monster who lives below. No one goes to hell, no one goes to heaven. It's about teaching you morals and values so that you can make the best of your life while you're still here.

But, instead, you spend all your time hating other religions and sexualities because you take the bible wrong. It's like reading harry potter and treating it as if it was sacred and thinking everyone is magical and those who aren't are muggles.

It's just completely STUPID.

end of story, go get a life.

Answer 5

This is called the "slippery slope" argument. It goes like this: If we allow gays to marry, then what's stopping us from allowing polygamy, brother/sister marriages, first cousin marriages, human with animal marriages, etc.

This argument is used by those who promote the anti-gay agenda to deflect attention from the real issue: Currently, heterosexuals have special rights, such as marriage, based on whom they have sex with. Gay people who pay the same taxes as heterosexuals should receive all the same rights, benefits and privileges as heterosexuals do.

Answer 6

I guess.....I have no problem with gay marriage....it doesnt effect me in the slightest

Answer 7

No, I do not support gay marriages. I believe that gays are sick people.

Answer 8

There are no gays in Iran says Ahmadenijad!!!! Is that the only country without gays?